21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diastolic Dysfunction Is an Independent Predictor of Cardiovascular Events in Incident Dialysis Patients with Preserved Systolic Function

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Diastolic heart failure (HF), the prevalence of which is gradually increasing, is associated with cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in the general population and, more specifically, in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, the impact of diastolic dysfunction on CV outcomes has not been studied in incident dialysis patients with preserved systolic function.

          Methods

          This prospective observational cohort study investigates the clinical consequence of diastolic dysfunction and the predictive power of diastolic echocardiographic parameters for CV events in 194 incident ESRD patients with normal or near normal systolic function, who started dialysis between July 2008 and August 2012.

          Results

          During a mean follow-up duration of 27.2 months, 57 patients (29.4%) experienced CV events. Compared to the CV event-free group, patients with CV events had a significantly higher left ventricular (LV) mass index, ratio of early mitral flow velocity (E) to early mitral annulus velocity (E’) (E/E’), LA volume index (LAVI), deceleration time, and right ventricular systolic pressure, and a significantly lower LV ejection fraction and E’. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, E/E’>15 and LAVI>32 mL/m 2 significantly predicted CV events (E/E’>15: hazard ratio [HR] = 5.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.73–10.70, P< .001; LAVI>32 mL/m 2: HR = 5.56, 95% CI = 2.28–13.59, P< .001]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with both E/E’>15 and LAVI>32mL/m 2 had the worst CV outcomes.

          Conclusion

          An increase in E/E’ or LAVI is a significant risk factor for CV events in incident dialysis patients with preserved LV systolic function.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings.

          To determine the accuracy of echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) dimension and mass measurements for detection and quantification of LV hypertrophy, results of blindly read antemortem echocardiograms were compared with LV mass measurements made at necropsy in 55 patients. LV mass was calculated using M-mode LV measurements by Penn and American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) conventions and cube function and volume correction formulas in 52 patients. Penn-cube LV mass correlated closely with necropsy LV mass (r = 0.92, p less than 0.001) and overestimated it by only 6%; sensitivity in 18 patients with LV hypertrophy (necropsy LV mass more than 215 g) was 100% (18 of 18 patients) and specificity was 86% (29 of 34 patients). ASE-cube LV mass correlated similarly to necropsy LV mass (r = 0.90, p less than 0.001), but systematically overestimated it (by a mean of 25%); the overestimation could be corrected by the equation: LV mass = 0.80 (ASE-cube LV mass) + 0.6 g. Use of ASE measurements in the volume correction formula systematically underestimated necropsy LV mass (by a mean of 30%). In a subset of 9 patients, 3 of whom had technically inadequate M-mode echocardiograms, 2-dimensional echocardiographic (echo) LV mass by 2 methods was also significantly related to necropsy LV mass (r = 0.68, p less than 0.05 and r = 0.82, p less than 0.01). Among other indexes of LV anatomy, only measurement of myocardial cross-sectional area was acceptably accurate for quantitation of LV mass (r = 0.80, p less than 0.001) or diagnosis of LV hypertrophy (sensitivity = 72%, specificity = 94%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study.

            The importance of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is increasingly recognized. We conducted a study to evaluate the epidemiologic features and outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and to compare the findings with those from patients who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. From April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2001, we studied 2802 patients admitted to 103 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, with a discharge diagnosis of heart failure whose ejection fraction had also been assessed. The patients were categorized in three groups: those with an ejection fraction of less than 40 percent (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), those with an ejection fraction of 40 to 50 percent (heart failure with borderline ejection fraction), and those with an ejection fraction of more than 50 percent (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Two groups were studied in detail: those with an ejection fraction of less than 40 percent and those with an ejection fraction of more than 50 percent. The main outcome measures were death within one year and readmission to the hospital for heart failure. Thirty-one percent of the patients had an ejection fraction of more than 50 percent. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction were more likely to be older and female and to have a history of hypertension and atrial fibrillation. The presenting history and clinical examination findings were similar for the two groups. The unadjusted mortality rates for patients with an ejection fraction of more than 50 percent were not significantly different from those for patients with an ejection fraction of less than 40 percent at 30 days (5 percent vs. 7 percent, P=0.08) and at 1 year (22 percent vs. 26 percent, P=0.07); the adjusted one-year mortality rates were also not significantly different in the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.36; P=0.18). The rates of readmission for heart failure and of in-hospital complications did not differ between the two groups. Among patients presenting with new-onset heart failure, a substantial proportion had an ejection fraction of more than 50 percent. The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was similar to that of patients with reduced ejection fraction. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the community: appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic.

              Approximately half of patients with overt congestive heart failure (CHF) have diastolic dysfunction without reduced ejection fraction (EF). Yet, the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction and its relation to systolic dysfunction and CHF in the community remain undefined. To determine the prevalence of CHF and preclinical diastolic dysfunction and systolic dysfunction in the community and determine if diastolic dysfunction is predictive of all-cause mortality. Cross-sectional survey of 2042 randomly selected residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, aged 45 years or older from June 1997 through September 2000. Doppler echocardiographic assessment of systolic and diastolic function. Presence of CHF diagnosis by review of medical records with designation as validated CHF if Framingham criteria are satisfied. Subjects without a CHF diagnosis but with diastolic or systolic dysfunction were considered as having either preclinical diastolic or preclinical systolic dysfunction. The prevalence of validated CHF was 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-2.8%) with 44% having an EF higher than 50%. Overall, 20.8% (95% CI, 19.0%-22.7%) of the population had mild diastolic dysfunction, 6.6% (95% CI, 5.5%-7.8%) had moderate diastolic dysfunction, and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%) had severe diastolic dysfunction with 5.6% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.7%) of the population having moderate or severe diastolic dysfunction with normal EF. The prevalence of any systolic dysfunction (EF < or =50%) was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.0%-7.1%) with moderate or severe systolic dysfunction (EF < or =40%) being present in 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.5%). CHF was much more common among those with systolic or diastolic dysfunction than in those with normal ventricular function. However, even among those with moderate or severe diastolic or systolic dysfunction, less than half had recognized CHF. In multivariate analysis, controlling for age, sex, and EF, mild diastolic dysfunction (hazard ratio, 8.31 [95% CI, 3.00-23.1], P<.001) and moderate or severe diastolic dysfunction (hazard ratio, 10.17 [95% CI, 3.28-31.0], P<.001) were predictive of all-cause mortality. In the community, systolic dysfunction is frequently present in individuals without recognized CHF. Furthermore, diastolic dysfunction as rigorously defined by comprehensive Doppler techniques is common, often not accompanied by recognized CHF, and associated with marked increases in all-cause mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                4 March 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 3
                : e0118694
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
                [3 ]Severance Biomedical Science Institute, Brain Korea 21 PLUS project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                Children’s Hospital Boston/Harvard Medical School, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JHH SWK. Performed the experiments: JSH EJK FMD HMK CHK MJL. Analyzed the data: HJO JTP SHH DRR THY. Wrote the paper: JHH HJO SWK.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-28059
                10.1371/journal.pone.0118694
                4349827
                25739020
                c6aad3db-f164-4c6e-a978-ff734b643496
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 9 July 2014
                : 23 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 8, Pages: 20
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Brain Korea 21 PLUS Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, and a grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI10C2020). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article